|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: do u belive in evolution | |||
| yes but up to a certain extent |
   
|
33 | 32.67% |
| yes , fully agree |
  
|
47 | 46.53% |
| absolutely against |
  
|
17 | 16.83% |
| undecided yet |
  
|
4 | 3.96% |
| Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-24-2006, 10:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Evolution is just what is says, things evolve. Man didn't learn to speak overnight, it was a gradual process. Generally evolution takes place over 1000's of years, but a good example which was seen at a much quicker timeframe, was a species of butterfly which had a very distinct colouring during the industrial revolution. As pollution levels grew the trees became dark and discoloured, which made the butterfly stand out more and become easy prey for its predators. Over the course of a few years the butterfly colouring changed to darker colours to blend in with its new polluted surroundings. This is evolution.
And a point i always raise when discussing science Vs religion, is why is there no mention of Dinosaurs? These beasts walked the earth for millions of years but there is no mention of them. Curious?? And the point you raised about why aren't there more intelligent species of Homonids is a good one, but again easily explained. Homo-Sapiens are the end product of Homo-Errectus, one of the many different upright apes. Accross much of europe, for quite a while, Neandathals were unchallanged until Homo-Sapiens crossed from Africa about 10,000 years ago. And for what ever reasons, Homo-Sapiens became the only intelligent Ape. And scintific research now points at numerous types of upright Ape which eventually died out, as they were not able to adapt to thier changing surroundings the way Man can. As i said before, evolution is a slow and gradual process. 200 years ago Man was riding Horses as a sole mode of transport, and now we have Cars and Planes. Why? Because evolution continues to this day. Every day Man becomes a little smarter than We were yesterday, ergo, we can do more today than we could yesterday. The same goes for language, writing, mathamatics, science etc. A slow and gradual process. I await your reply with interest  
|
|
02-24-2006, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Where are the fossil records of these hominids? A fossil of one hominid allegedly 10,000,000 years ago hardly explains evolution. You would need 10,000s' of fossils of hominids in a progression to homosapien from homo erectus. I dont see one. zero. Where is the fossil records of the other prehistoric upright apes? nowhere. These few skulls of apes that have different brow lines is a joke. It is just a frickin monkey that his skull is shaped different than another ones. Excuse my rudeness, but chinese, blacks , and down syndrome people have very different shaped skulls than Caucasians do. Who is to say a monkey of a species doesnt have the same diversity. Oh, wait, they do. These 4 skulls of monkeys that look different arent in anyway a valid proof of darwinism. Who ever buys that crap needs to shop somewhere else. I could take two monkey skulls, one monkey having a deformed head, and say, "Oh my, this monkey is evolving to a smarter species." Totally ridiculous, right?
__________________
6'2" 215lbs 10% BF
|
|
02-25-2006, 08:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
you stand corrected>>>>> Job 41 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society Job 41 1 "Can you pull in the leviathan [a] with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? 2 Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? 4 Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? 5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? 6 Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? 8 If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! 9 Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering. 10 No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me? 11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. 12 "I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form. 13 Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle? 14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? 15 His back has [b] rows of shields tightly sealed together; 16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. 17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. 18 His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. 21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth. 22 Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him. 23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable. 24 His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. 25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing. 26 The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. 27 Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. 28 Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him. 29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance. 30 His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. 31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair. 33 Nothing on earth is his equal— a creature without fear. 34 He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud."
__________________
save a doughnut, kill a C*P CHECK OUT ALL MY FUNNY PICS @ HTTP://DANNYMACK81.MULTIPLY.COM
|
|
02-25-2006, 09:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
cool links of humans and dinos in the same fossil layers.....
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm http://www.bible.ca/tracks/burdick-track.htm
__________________
save a doughnut, kill a C*P CHECK OUT ALL MY FUNNY PICS @ HTTP://DANNYMACK81.MULTIPLY.COM
|
|
03-03-2006, 09:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am a scientist, so I go with data. The data fit the theory of evolution better than any alternative I know. So I go with that. However, I keep an open mind. If anyone has any technical questions about the theory or how it is applied, let me know. I think I can help.
__________________
6', 218lbs, 19%bf longest run: 27miles 5K race time: 26min
|
|
03-04-2006, 03:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i dont cAre what anyone says. Im catholic, and i LIKE to think there is an after life and there are some things that happen to you in life in which you think.. damn that just cant be no coincidence.
HOWEVER, to think that someone just popped out of space and zapped people on earth is a load of ****. I cant believe people say that evolution is too far fetched... i mean wtf... whats more far fetched? bacteria evolving into intelligent beings over billions of years... or a man popping out of thin air zapping life? There is good evidence to suggest evolution is true... NO evidence to suggest a man popped out of no where and created life. We humans are a funny bunch, we follow the crowd no just physically.. but mentally.. we will believe most things are true it a massive amount of other ppl believe its true. If a very important person came up to you that you respected and said something fairly unrealistic... like:: the US have made contact with aliens.. and there was a bunch of ppl you respected backing him up.. you would fall for it. Thats just the way we are. Last edited by hmmm; 03-04-2006 at 03:17 AM.
|
|
03-04-2006, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Great discussion, but, all speculation. As for down syndrome, it is caused by an extra chromosome at the 21st position, not by a gentic change, just an addition. it is common knowledge that apes and humans have very similar genomes (as far as we know). 2 twins (or 3 triplets, etc.) have same dna, but different fingerprints... go figure... i want someone to guess my religion, ill give you 200 points. 
__________________
rradam at cyber-rights.net
|
|
03-04-2006, 05:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Read back on what you just wrote. Now listen to this. You've just said micro is a fact and macro is a theory:: (which is true). THEN you go on to say how unrealistic and ridiculous macro theory is (which isnt that ridiculous if you think about it, if micro works, why not macro?). Now this is where it gets funny. I am a religious guy, and I am absoluteley in favor of "inteligent design/creationism" Your in favour of some intelligent designer that popped out of space and decided to create life? Sounds like someone was smoking weed when thinking up that load of ****. Atleast we can see some form of evidence with evolution... ID is going off nothing.... oh wait they think that face of planet mars means that we were created by some bloke-- who decided to paint a picture on mars. Im know scientist, i just believe what the scientist believe, not some religious wackos who are trying to get their creationlism theory into schools in the form of intelligent design. However i would like to say a couple of things about evolution. 1. immunity doesnt pass to children:: Why was it when europeans went on their conquests and invaded south america the natives were killed by all the european diseases--however the effect on the europeans was far far less. This seems to me that they have built up some form of strength or immunity to european diseases over time. Its been seen in a lot of invasions where natives weren't used to european disease and massive numbers of natives died. 2. Just as we adapt to weightlifting we adapt to changes in the enviroment. We go out in the sun, we get tanned. Adapting has to do something with evolution since, since evolution was all about adapting to the changes. Now of course macro evolution cannot be proved because you would need millions of years to actually see the genes to change to actually pass to their children. I just dont think its ever going to be able to actually show. The human body is an amazing thing it can adapt to a lot of things if you give it time to change. We still do not know everything about it. But to make this **** up about Intelligent design just because we cannot yet prove evolution because of the difficulty is really sad.
|
|
03-04-2006, 07:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Deep Thoughts
Quote:
We are kids talking to the air, a pet imaginary frog, or something that keeps us company. Discouraged by what adults call "reality", we drop that idea and are taught to adopt GOD as the best imaginary friend you can have. Something bad happen? He is trying to teach you something. Something good happen? Don't thank the fellow that actually helped you, thank GOD! GOD is soooo present in our lives he protects all his "houses". Don't you know that each time somene tries to burn down a church, a rain cloud immediately forms over it and puts out the fire and strange lighting appears in the sky that tells the police to come by and arrest the arsonist. Don't you know each time someone assults a priest or a nun that they are protected by a mysterious force that keeps them from harm? He is sending the message, I AM REAL, I AM HERE, BELIEVE! Thank GOD for these supernatural events that occur every day, or else I would be atheist! I am sure GOD is very happy we start wars and kill each other in HIS NAME, the ALMIGHTLY. After all, isnt that what he created religion for? To defend HIM.
__________________
6', 218lbs, 19%bf longest run: 27miles 5K race time: 26min Last edited by MaggioMuscle; 03-04-2006 at 07:58 AM.
|
|
03-04-2006, 04:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
I'm sorry, I just dont see ANY single-celled organism EVER progressively evolving to a self-aware human.
I truelly believe that both evolution and creation will always be just theories. They both require faith, and people ultimately just decide to believe what that want to reguardless of any "hard evidence." I think people that admit there is a higher being, but then say "i dont think he has the power to create anything" is hypacritical IMHO. Also, why does it seem that evolutionists would be against believing in a more advanced/evolved being that could do things that we believe to be impossible. Not long ago well-educated men would have said it "impossible" to travel to the moon.
__________________
save a doughnut, kill a C*P CHECK OUT ALL MY FUNNY PICS @ HTTP://DANNYMACK81.MULTIPLY.COM
|
|
03-04-2006, 06:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The fact that 90% of the people on the Earth still believe in some sort of God is proof how unevolved and primative we humans still are.
|
|
03-04-2006, 08:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
6', 218lbs, 19%bf longest run: 27miles 5K race time: 26min
|
|
03-04-2006, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
03-05-2006, 04:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One need only look at this thread to realize the depth of which a creationist's ignorance concerning evolution can sink. In these depths, there is no ligt, no escape, and no intelligence dwells within.
I offer these 15 responses to creationist nonsense; I hope these help in dealing with people who believe in an invisible man in the sky that punish all who disagree with 'him' and 'his' special, special 'children': When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination. Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God. Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage. To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom. 1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. "Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991]. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances. 3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor. 4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. 5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory. 6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct. 7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. 8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. 9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.
|
